Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconWeather Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment[edit]

I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AATalk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under review

Unifying monsoon page names[edit]

While I looked at Monsoon#Global monsoon, I noticed that all articles used in Template:Main are inconsistently named.

There is:

There might be more pages about regional monsoon than just these 4 which also need to be accounted for.

Every page there is named differently. What should the preferred main article name be?

"Reposted" from Old revision of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) as apparently this should be the right place. NetSysFire (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As "monsoon" is not part of a proper noun, I think the appropriate way to title these is to use the Australian page as a model. I would name these "North American monsoon", "South Asian monsoon", "East Asian monsoon", and "Australian monsoon". DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Food and Health at Climate change[edit]

There is an RFC requesting that editors choose between one of two draft sections on Food and Health in the article on Climate change. Please take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for Additional Proposed Criteria for WP:TornadoCriteria[edit]

There is an RFC requested that editors choose whether or not two additional criteria should be formally added to WP:TornadoCriteria. You can participate in the RFC here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox storm replacement and footers[edit]

Hopefully this ia a good place to bring this up. There seems to be an effort underfoot to replace {{infobox storm}} with {{infobox weather event}}, and since I'm doing my bit in cleaning up lint errors, I've come across cases where people have done this replacement, but didn't know they needed to include a footer (which {{infobox storm}} apparently didn't need), resulting in lint errors and issues with infobox display. I'm pretty sure there have been any number of similar cases that someone else has taken care of.

So, in order to minimize extra cleanup, it seems like it'd be useful to put up a notice about needing to add a footer - somewhere the people participating in this infobox conversion project would be most likely to see it, and I'm not sure where that would be. Gamapamani (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the template {{infobox weather event}} is currently semi-protected, if you need to put a notice before your account gets verified, you can discuss your suggestion on the template's talk page.
Once your account is verified, you would be able to add a larger notice to the template page directly (instead of the brief mention within the inline text). 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. This is kind of funny, because I actually added this comment to the template's talk page at first, but then moved it over here instead after reading the suggestions there about the page not being read much, as opposed to here. Anyway, I went ahead and changed the template doc to show the footer requirement more prominently. I guess I should have that in the first place, but I was thinking about some project page somewhere where people would be able to see the notice even if they didn't read the docs carefully. Gamapamani (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite Archives: Imminent Danger Warning[edit]

The service is used frequently in weather articles particularly tropical typhoons and cyclones.

We believe it will go completely dark at some point in the future: All URLs should be assumed to no longer work in the future.

WebCite went completely offline for a year and half. Then it was restored, but in shaky condition.

Bots can not help for technical reasons. It will require manual intervention. After WebCite disappears, the citations will no longer be accessible, and there is a possibility the entire citation and the material that cites it could be deleted per WP:V. This situation could be devastating for all of these articles due to the scale of WebCite usage.

There is no immediate need to panic because we have no information of an imminent WebCite failure. However, preparations for failure should begin now before it is too late.

Please note that attempting to save WebCite links at might give the appearance of working, but actually does not work, there is in insidious technical snare built into WebCite to prevent the Wayback Machine from saving their links (correctly). It is recommended to use if you choose. Even better is find the original link and find an archive for it at Wayback or Today. -- GreenC 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Thanks for the heads up and this has been something I have been worried about for a few years, and I am disappointed that the internet archive, despite appearing to work, will not save the links properly. Is there any way of getting a list together of all articles that have links to Webcite in them?Jason Rees (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jason Rees thank you for your interest. I will generate a list of pages and URLs and post where to retrieve it. The impression count on enwiki is 37,148 as of April 24 (column H). This is non-unique count. As can be seen, there are still over 1.2 million elsewhere. It's unfortunate about Wayback, but creating copies on should be possible. If they are saved on, once there, my bot can do the work of replacing on wiki. The bot will find the webcite link in the article, look it up at, retrieve a new URL, and replace. Are you programmer or script writer? There might be some tools for mass saving a list of links at -- GreenC 21:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a programmer or a scriptwriter, but we have a few lurking in the project. @Chlod: for instance. Anyway, Webcite is something that I and other project members have been worried about as a lot of our articles are impacted, as some of the links contain decent information about how a system formed, dissipated, its intensity etc. Some of these links can be found again or superseded by others or dropped as the sections are reworked, but first things first we need to get a list of articles impacted together on wiki so that we can work out how badly we are impacted and maybe even clean the sections up.Jason Rees (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I generate a final list, I want to cleanup the links. Edits like this Special:Diff/1210676215/1221876846 which prior to yesterday was impossible due to the WebCite API being broken. Or giving that appearance. I got it to work, they have bogus SSL so it required a hack. I am doing this as fast as possible while the hack is working. After this I'll try to convert these to links. -- GreenC 14:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jason Rees Update: I'm converting the links, in about 20,000 pages. The rate might be as high as 50%, mostly to - it will take a week or two because it's slow for the bot to process, and I manually verify every link, due to the high rate of soft-404s at -- GreenC 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WebCite is now down, probably for [days/weeks/years/ever] - but that's OK I got the data I needed. I can continue with the conversions to - and WebCite being down makes that easier because no one can complain about converting from a dead/unreliable site. -- GreenC 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Rees, I completed the WebCite conversion project for now. I converted about 11,000 links to (the conversion was already done years ago). Whatever remains I can't convert (safely) by bot. There is work to be done manually, which I would be happy to discuss what could be done. There could be a project page describing the issue and what users might do to try and convert WebCite links. -- GreenC 15:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here: Help:Using_WebCite#Moving_to_a_different_provider -- GreenC 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier[edit]

Not sure if this has already been brought up before, but thought I'd add this suggestion here.

Seeing how the format of 2023 and 2024 dedicate tornado sections beyond the US and differ from earlier lists (2022 and earlier), should the prior list format be updated to parallel 2023 and 2024? As it stands, the differences create 2 distinct formats for these lists, whereas there should (ideally) only be 1 format.

I understand that there are numerous template and format inconsistencies that are gradually being resolved regarding tornado articles, but the yearly tornado lists serve as the backbone for tornado articles overall. 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The older articles need to be updated to how the newer years look like. Of course, we can't force a mandate to change things, but there was a discussion about how best to present the yearly articles, with a consensus that organization by area, rather than month, is appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the consensus was to finish out 2024 to get the kinks out and reach a good standard before starting work on bringing former years to the new standard. Pinging @ChessEric, @WeatherWriter, and @TheAustinMan who IIRC were involved in that discussion to confirm my understanding is accurate. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly starting to not be a fan of this. I like the events to be organized by month, especially since most events are in the U.S. We should finish out 2024 first before changing the older years so that we can get all the kinks out and come to a final decision. ChessEric 22:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of greater importance, in my opinion, is to fix the refs on the tornado list pages. ChessEric 22:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually with ChessEric on this. I honestly would say we should go back to the old format for the articles and to compensate for less-U.S. centric: (1) Continue to not include US-only stuff in the infobox at the top and (2) add "(United States)" next to the subheaders like we do in this format. That would fix the format (which is really annoying to me now) and keep it less-U.S. centric. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pitched a different format so it wouldn't be so biased towards the US. They are commonplace in the United States, and there are already monthly articles covering every US tornado. Comparing it to tropical cyclones, it's like the tropical cyclones by year organizing the information (and the season articles) by basin (2024 Atlantic hurricane season, etc.) The same principle for tornadoes going by continent, which provides a much more global perspective than having the US info alongside the rest of the world. I say that because there are a disproportionate number of US editors, so naturally they are going to be a lot of editors writing about US events. What I want to make sure is that the currently biased yearly tornado articles (2022 and previous) should have a decent bit of coverage for other areas. Changing it to being organized by continent will reveal the articles that are missing any coverage from a given area. I strongly believe that is a better approach, since (due to their short-lived and isolated nature) there isn't likely to be a proper listing of every single tornado, everywhere around the world, in a given year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice discussion. For now, I shall hold off on applying the 2023–2024 format on pre-2010 lists until we confirm a consensus on the format. By the time I got to 2011, I realized that there were several international tornado reports that were barely elaborated on.
In the meantime, refer to the (preliminary) formatting changes made for 2011–2022 to gauge whether the new changes are favorable or not. Sorry about applying the change to this many articles... changes have been made to 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.
(reverted because of a misclick)
2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly more of a fan of TWEW's suggestion. ChessEric 04:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the older format, and thus having it biased towards the US? I'm not sure the advantage here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also in support of reverting to the original format. The new format is actually worse. United States Man (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give specifics? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Portal:Tornadoes[edit]

The recent outbreaks section at Portal:Tornadoes has been changed into a section featuring the tornado content of the current year and will automatically transclude from a list of specified articles. This should make it easier to update since only links need to be added. This change has been made in part since this portal section has not been maintained since the MfD. Noah, AATalk 13:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather: Description of random radar images and loops as "public domain"[edit]

I figure that even though this discussion pertains to WikiProject Severe weather, since it involves radar, which has many non-tornado/thunderstorm-related contexts, it should also be mentioned here. Thanks. Master of Time (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles[edit]

Recently, from the two discussions (one a few sections above this one and the other on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024), I have a proposal for the new layout, taking in feedback from those involved in those two discussions.

  1. Change (revert) the layout from the currently used By Continent (example: Tornadoes of 2023), to the original By Month (Example: Tornadoes of 2008).
  2. "(United States)" will be added to U.S.-based events, which was not done in original By Month layouts.
  3. U.S.-only things will be left out of the infobox at the top of the yearly page (Infobox example Tornadoes of 2023). However, monthly U.S. totals can (and should) be mentioned at the beginning of each months section. Information regarding other countries or regions (example: number of European tornadoes or number of China tornadoes) during the month should also receive a sentence at the beginning of each months section.
In short, a small "monthly global summary" opens the section.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


(Moved from above for RFC tag. Ignore.) — Since there is two discussions (on two separate talk pages) regarding this topic at the same time, I wanted to make this discussion and ping all users involved: (courtesy pings: @ChessEric:, United States Man, HamiltonthesixXmusic, TornadoInformation12, DJ Cane, Hurricanehink). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from above for RFC tag.) — Based on the feedback, two things were clear: The old layout (By Month) is definitely the preferred layout to most editors. However, the reasoning for the layout change to begin with involved fighting U.S.-centeredness in articles, that is where point 2 and 3 come in. In pre-2023 layouts (before any changes), U.S. monthly totals were mentioned as the opening to each month, however, no other countries were mentioned. Also, "(United States)} was never used in pre-2023 layouts as well. To me, this proposal for a layout seems to solve issues brought up in past discussions, while also being the layout the majority of the community wants. Thoughts? Supports? Opposes? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – As proposer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support — Glad to see a reasonable solution to our grievances with this current layout. Thanks for your good work! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I like that better. ChessEric 06:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – In my opinion, the old layout was more visually appealing to me. However, I respect individuals who think otherwise.
    Poodle23 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – In agreement with proposal. United States Man (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I like this idea. I can't stand the new layout, and we pretty much got pushed into it by one single user. If a majority of editors want to get rid of this current, clunky format, then lets get rid of it. Majority opinion matters here.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

  • Support Dont see any issues with this. Noah, BSBATalk 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see I’m going to be shouted down here but appreciate @WeatherWriter trying to find a common ground. I am a weak support for 1 and 2 but am an oppose for 3. On global articles, US data should be presented the same as global data. Thus, if other totals aren’t included in the box, having a US totals box is something I can’t support. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Posting my reply in another thread here because I think most of the content is relevant for this discussion. Note that it is a direct reply to someone and references comments from that discussion.
    Please review previous discussions here and here for a primer on why I originally recommended we change to this model and what steps and compromises occurred to get here.
    I fail to see how splitting by region first then date makes it clunky. I would argue that not doing so is worse from a readability standpoint. The target audience of Wikipedia is not weather nerds or experts in the field, but everyone. Jumping around from continent to continent mixes vastly different events and climatological regimes unnecessarily and waters down the differences between different events/outbreaks.
    What exactly about splitting by region makes it more clunky and decreases navigation quality? What specifically are you looking for that isn’t presented? You mention a nice summary of events. That’s here, and not only is it here but it is presented in a more intelligent form by grouping by region. The original system wasn’t working well for international coverage, and nothing in this or other discussions points toward the page having been made worse.
    Finally, not only are US tornadoes given appropriate coverage here relative to global frequency (the amount of coverage hasn’t changed), they are at the top of the page and are not mixed in with foreign events. It’s surprising to me that editors find this to be undesirable. This is, notably, against Wikipedia precedent for other global lists which are typically sorted alphabetically. I don’t think it’s wrong to put North America and the United States at the top (due to climatology and data availability), but it is worth noting. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@DJ Cane: US total’s box? I think you misread what the third point was suppose to be. If you look at Tornadoes of 2008 (perfect example of the old format), you can see how the very top infobox has “Tornadoes in U.S.: 1,692”, “Damage (U.S.)”, and “Fatalities (U.S.)”, while if you look at Tornadoes of 2023’s top infobox, it only has “Fatalities (worldwide): 116”. That is part one of the third point: i.e. no U.S. stuff in the top infobox. (Matching the Tornadoes of 2023 infobox).
The second part is to have global monthly summaries. Going back to Tornadoes of 2008 example, take a look at Tornadoes of 2008#April. The entire section starts out There were 189 tornadoes reported in the United States in the month of April, all of which were confirmed. Basically, the second part of the third point is to keep those, but expand them to include other countries. Hopefully that makes a little more sense as to what the third point is. Since you were one of the main editors on board for less-U.S. centerness, I am thinking you just misread it, since the third point is an actual “less-U.S. centric” point. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, I did misinterpret it and as such switch to weak support. Not because I think this method is better, but because I think this is a reasonable compromise. Thanks for the reword. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support – these three points seem like a reasonable compromise, and top-level ordering by month remains a decent manner of organization. However, I'm a little confused by the degree of consternation caused by the current format. It's not all that drastically different from the previous format, all considered; the events occurring in the U.S., for instance, are essentially still all together, presented in chronological order, and labeled by their date of occurrence, as was the case previously. I'm not seeing the clunky and difficult-to-navigate nature of the current format that have been brought up over the past few months – can someone enlighten me as to what the particular issues here are? —TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After mulling over the proposed changes, I have changed my stance to oppose (#2 and #3 are contingent on #1, so oppose all by default). I echo what I wrote when the changes were originally proposed, and what I wrote below. In particular, regionalizing tornadoes and outbreak information by continent enables better contextualization of events, as broader summary-level descriptions of weather patterns and tornadic activity are more applicable by region than globally by month. —TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 00:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I figure that I'm in the minority, but I want to echo what DJ Cane (talk · contribs) said. My main issue is that most yearly tornado articles are overwhelmingly biased towards the US, which makes sense considering the number of editors from English-speaking countries (including the US). Using Tornadoes of 2008 as an example, the amount of information dominated by the US is obvious. The synopsis has three paragraphs covering the US, as if that was a proper synopsis of worldwide tornadoes in 2008. Under events, it only lists US tornadoes in the first section. I compared the amount of information about the US vs the rest of the world. There is more than ten times the amount of information about the US than the rest of the world - 7,761 words versus 642. That means the US is more than 93% of the yearly worldwide coverage. And that's already with having US monthly articles. Now, one might say, "but the US has more tornadoes than anywhere else." OK, but does it really have 10 times more tornadoes than the rest of the world? And even if it did, in the interest of balanced coverage, is that fair to have 93% of the content? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may propose a counter point: Articles overwhelmingly biased towards the U.S. is not from the number of English speaking countries. In fact, it shouldn’t even be from the fact the U.S. gets 10x more tornadoes than any other country (also that is from WMO). Based on the strong community consensus which decided WP:TornadoCriteria, if there is more U.S. info on an article, that is because more notable events occurred in the U.S. than other countries. The only way to reduce that is to restrict the U.S. inclusion criteria even more. However, I do not think that would happen, given the discussions to create the criteria in the first place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the number of tornadoes for non-US countries though? Is there even anyone going out of the way researching tornadoes outside of the US? Yes, the US has 1,200 a year, but Europe has 300, Canada has 230, China has 100, Australia has 30, Japan has 20, South America and Asia get some. Even though the US gets more, there are already tons more articles focusing on US tornadoes. What I think we need to is to provide a better global perspective in the yearly articles, but just listing the summaries by month isn't going to make things better from a global perspective. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on that, which is perfectly fine. Currently, there is eight editors in support of going back to the "By Month" layout over the "By Continent" layout and you (so far) are the only editor in opposition to that. If I may ask though, why would a "By Month" layout be U.S.-centric over a "By Continent" layout, since the same number of U.S. sections vs Non-U.S. sections would be present in both layouts as dictated by WP:TornadoCriteria? To me, the "By Continent" layout would seem actually more U.S. centric than the "By Month" layout, as it specifically lists all U.S. tornadoes first (as North America is listed first) rather than all the other countries or in chronological order. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because if we just go by month, no one will notice if there's nothing included for any non-US areas. Organizing by continent will at least have a section, even if it's blank, identifying a major part of the article that is missing. Right now, we could have a fairly full yearly article that is almost all US. That's unacceptable to me, and I'm American XD ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I agree with the ideas proposed, the monthly layout of the page was easier to navigate and much more convenient to easily access the more detailed monthly tornado lists for the US, and by adding a sentence for how many tornadoes were confirmed in other continents/major countries, if there were any, as well as adding "(United States)" to the end of the different US tornado events, it sufficiently makes it less US-centered, giving some attention to the other parts of the world that have experienced tornado activity, while not entirely changing the layout to an unstable one that editors have been having problems with (e.g., formatting errors for the North America events). ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose #2 Maybe it's just me, but it feels like every tornado section having (United States) added is a lot of extra clutter to fight US-centeredness in an article that will always naturally have a lot more US content than anywhere else in the world. I'd rather have the specific states or the region of the US listed if something needs to be listed in parenthesis, because just "United States" doesn't give any additional info on where the storms are located compared to the previous format (where no country in parenthesis indicated USA). It doesn't quite feel like slapping a bandaid over the problem, but I'm not sure how better to describe it. Support #1 and #3, because those are good changes in my opinion (#3 does a good job of tackling US-centeredness, imo). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The arguments all seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT without concrete arguments. I mostly agree with Hurricanehink here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you dismissing the fact that the current format leaves gaps in the structure and information of this page? If you are concerned with combating US-centeredness we have Clause #3 aiming to create nonUS information sections as well, but shorter to fit the dearth of available information. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen it mentioned, but what exactly are the gaps in the structure and information in the current format? Consider Tornadoes of 2023 compared to Tornadoes of 2010, for instance; I'm not seeing much of a substantive difference in structural or informational gaps. In fact I would think the current format is better for leaving open the possibility of discussing environmental factors, trends, patterns, and other statistical information, since those are more likely to be geographically rather than temporally organized. —TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaps are useful for readability. WP:WALLOFTEXT exists for a reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAustinMan Most editors and visitors for this page want to change the layout to the previous layout with some new modifications regarding recording tornado events outside the US. That way, we can preserve readability and the statistics already included from European and Asian events.
    @Jasper Deng Not sure what your position is exactly, aside from you providing an WP:ILIKEIT argument for HurricaneHink. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HamiltonthesixXmusic: Your response does not answer @TheAustinMan:'s question of what information is missing from the new format.Jason Rees (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, Jason Rees. Simple mistake on my part.
    I was referring to the lack of updated information on the European and Asian tornado counts for this year, due to the lack of editors willing to work with the new format. So far, the European/Asian section lacks detailed sections such as the ones about US tornadic events, such in rating classifications, injuries, relevance/news sourcing, and images. We still haven't even finished finalizing the March/April tornado count in Europe, so this is obviously a large problem we never should have gotten into in the first place. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "structural" issues I see are mostly article-composition related. The flow of this layout as compared to the old layout (pre-2023) is less orderly and more complicated, with the lack of a linked table of contents for chronological purposes, as well as having overly long written sections and short ones in close proximity to each other. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is organizing by continent more complicated? If the info isn’t there, then that becomes more obvious with the continental listing. It’s like organizing by tropical cyclone basins. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricanehink You aren't wrong in your idealistic argument. Organizing by continent does not make the tornado page more complicated, and it could be more useful. The problem is that no one is willing to work with it, and our page views have dropped compared to last year. In fact, the continental-layout failed to really take the US-centered bias from this article, so these proposed reversions could perhaps adjust this goal for a more realistic result. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you can't really compare global tropical cyclones to global tornadoes due to the differences in available data & information. Tropical cyclones are tracked year-round across the world via satellites and by multiple weather agencies (NOAA, NWS, JMA, JTWC, etc). Hence, widespread information and updates on tropical cyclones throughout the world. But regarding tornadoes, only the US and Europe have actual tornado databases. Asia has a very limited database to work with (mostly China - no other countries with consistent tornado information) and Africa and South America have none at all. So when you want to organize tornado layout by continent, you are making it harder to source information here and thus lowering the quality of the content we produce. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HamiltonthesixXmusic: A very quick Google tells me that there are tornado databases in South Africa, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and Fiji, while im sure if I dug deeper we could get a lot more sources for tornadoes around the world together. I also came across this blog post which backs my thinking about tornado databases existing up. As a result, I personally reject the argument that we are making it harder source information and are lowering the quality of the content we produce just because we are organizing by continent.Jason Rees (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See how detailed those databases are and if they are suitable for all the tornado articles created (going all the way to 1980).
    Anyways, I am done arguing with you. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HamiltonthesixXmusic: I am trying to work out my position and responded to your position with a calm and reasonable question, in order to try and figure out my thinking on this proposal since we go by consensus and not necessarily what the majority wants.Jason Rees (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the consensus not majority-driven? What in the world are you talking about? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent to this discussion is the Wikipedia policy for Consensus neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Further, just to add a bit to this discussion, I already said tornadoes should be organized by continent, but I want to go further, that tornadoes should be organized at the local level, such as country, or even more local in the case of U.S. states, and likely Mexican/Indian/Australian states, Chinese provinces, etc. I believe if all of the articles were created, then users would get used to such a format. Major outbreaks usually get their own articles anyway. This would prevent having to list every single outbreak by month, or even every tornado, in the parent Tornadoes of YYYY list. They would all be mentioned in their regional articles. It would take a long time, but I think that is where the project is heading inevitably. I believe that provides a solution for how to organize the information, which seems to be the main concern. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is too idealistic. We have seen editors unwilling to frequently update tornado information for continental lists and sections, it will never work with all regions across the world.
Also, you and Jasper Deng seem to be the only editors against the reversion to the previous layout. There are eight editors in support of reversion, it’s by no means a close decision. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HamiltonthesixXmusic: Read the link that @Hurricanehink: provided to you as you will find that the consensus is based on the quality of an argument rather than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The main argument presented to revert to the old format is the quality of the article suffering due to a lack of editors willing to update sections outside of the United States, however, these quality issues would still be present if we reverted to the old format. As a result of this and seeing other articles that people are supposedly not willing to work on, I lean towards opposing reverting the format to what it was.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to oppose your opposition; the whole point of reverting is to get rid of the extra section that no one wants to edit and update. If no one wants to update the European section since April, why don't we just delete the whole thing??? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution isn't to delete the information. It's to make it easier to navigate and contribute. As for me being too idealistic, yea, I've seen how Wikipedia has evolved over the last 19 years. More articles, more structure, and more discussion generally leads to more productive outcomes. The issue earlier was organizing the information. Having a blank section is allowed, and it makes it easier to see what information could be added to give the article a more global point of view. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at the linked discussion you provided - your own argument was that ALL tornado articles (including tornadoes of the 20th century!) should have their layouts changed to this global layout. Now, you have your ideals set. Try and find anyone willing to edit that many articles.
It is much easier to go with the previous format, because it worked well without conflict for so many years. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I agree with your idea that global events should be recorded and given a section. But I do not think it can accomplish that ideal AND maintain quality with the prevalent unwillingness of us editors to actually work on this massive undertaking. It is not realistic at all. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that unrealistic, and I'm not telling anyone that they have to edit. It seems that the impetus of this discussion was the discussion before this "Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier", in which an editor already changed over the format going back to 2011. Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfect now, but it's already good thanks to so many editors, who are going to keep on doing their thing regardless of the outcome of this discussion, since most of the action happens in the individual outbreak articles (whether in the US or elsewhere honestly). Going back to old ways might seem easier, but if it had its flaws, shouldn't we find a different way forward? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was also partially thinking, we have lost several good editors throughout the years and with the recent influx of inexperienced editors, changing to a new, completely different layout too soon was a mistake. You make good points, it just doesn't address my personal convictions and that's alright.
Perhaps we should take a more middle approach with this layout issue. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are describing an inherently undemocratic process? I am at a plain loss with your words. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Wikipedia is not a democracy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight support 1 and 2, support 3. - The older layout was much more easy to navigate (as many editors have pointed out). #3 is different, as while U.S. stats are definitely higher, majority of the [Tornadoes of ####] articles are heavily biased toward a US-centric view and need to be changed to at least a slight extent. They all help tackle the US-centered problem, though. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal[edit]

As I am one of the dissenters to the proposal, I want to find a solution to the valid concerns from various editors, seeing as the above discussion seems to have died down without a consensus. Some of the main points of discussion seem to be wanting United States monthly totals. I still don't see anything wrong with that personally, just that I'd rather see that a yearly level listed as a table, and maybe even a breakdown by each category. In the interest of fairness around the world, we have the same tables for each country, where we have the total. It seems that the information organization is the main concern, and I want to acknowledge that without doing a complete reversal to listing all events by month. By keeping it in the format where it is organized by continent, we still have the geographic consistency, while still making sure the article isn't clunky.Hurricanehink (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two things: One, had you not started this, I was going to put a formal request for the discussion to be closed today, as today was the 1-week mark since the discussion started, so I guess we have to put that on hold now. Two, a yearly table by country would not work due to there being three (four in reality) scales used to measure tornadoes: F, EF, IF, and TORRO and the F/EF, IF, and TORRO have three different steps (6, 9, and 12 respectively). Too much of a pain.
In the original proposal, the process to list monthly/yearly totals per country (not just the US) was to add a sentence at the beginning of each month's section, meaning the yearly totals per country are listed in the article lead and the month totals per country are a small "lead" paragraph at the beginning of each month.
As for this proposal, if I am interpreting it correctly, you want to (1) keep the By continent format and (2) have a massive bulky chart either before the by-continent sections or at the very bottom, rather than a short few sentence paragraph explaining it? So, I am going to have to be a strong oppose to this, as bulky charts just create way too much space in articles (example being on List of European tornadoes in 2022#European yearly total, which is outdated as is and needs a lot of work/redone to begin with). A four sentence paragraph in a by-month section is way better than a large chart that would either (1) single the US/Canada out to begin with due to those countries using the EF scale/CEF scale vs other countries using the F or IF scale or (2) just be miserable to maintain and/or create. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small comment – Respectfully, I think there was a clear consensus on the first proposal, with 10 editors in support of all three proposals, 1 in support of point 1 and 3, and 3 editors in complete opposition.
In summary:
Point 1 – 11 editors in support of By Month layout vs 3 editors in opposition of By Month layout
Point 2 – 10 editors in support of adding "(United States)" vs 4 editors in opposition of it.
Point 3 – 11 editors in support of adding US & international totals at the beginning of each months sections vs 3 editors in opposition to that.
Even though Wikipedia is not a vote/democracy, that seems like a clear consensus even after a week discussion. So I would also disagree with your statement that the discussion "died down without a consensus." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, each country would have its own table listing tornadoes by month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is a very big oppose to that then. You do realize that more than 40 countries (on average) see tornadoes every year? 40! We do not need to fill that article with 40 tables. And no, I am not exagerating that point. Look at List of European tornadoes in 2022. 22 European countries had tornadoes. That is right there 22 tables, not even counting anyone outside of just Europe. Like I said, way too much work when literally a few sentence paragraph can do just the same. Your proposal is basically this: Instead of a 3-5,000 byte-size thing to summarize monthly totals, we need 50+k bytes-sized tables. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this alternate proposal as unnecessary. United States Man (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Replacing the current nonsensical layout with this alternate proposal is like putting lipstick on a pig. Makes the whole navigation scheme so much worse with so many additional tables and sections. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm striking the proposal. I don't want to hold this up and push my views any further on this matter. There's more important fish to fry. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of the famous 1997 "Dead Man Walking" image?[edit]

This may not go here, so if it isn't supposed to be here, I'm sorry. Does anyone know if the famous "Dead Man Walking" photograph of the 1997 Jarrell F5 tornado is copyrighted? I can't find anything on the matter, or if the man who took the photo (Scott Beckwith) worked for the NWS. If anyone knows anything or has any information relating to this, thanks! It is arguably the most famous photograph of a tornado ever taken, so if it isn't under a copyright I'd be more than happy to add it. Thanks so much! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MemeGod27: Beckwith worked for a local company (Jarrell Farm Supply), not the NWS. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, the photo was on an NWS publication and hence PD. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MemeGod27: Publication of an otherwise protected work by the U.S. government does not put that work in the public domain. See Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. It is preparation of the work by an officer of employee of the United States Government as part of their official duties which releases a work under public domain. Unless you have some other proof that the image has been released under terms compatible with Commons, File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg and other files uploaded under this assumption must be deleted. Chlod (say hi!) 10:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others.
The NWS offers no compensation for any images or videos.”
-NWS, link can be found at MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t add the template by the way MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beck with gave the entire photo sequence to the NWS, and therefore it is PD. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MemeGod27: The issue here stems not from the fact that the image was not published in a NWS document, as far as the info you've provided tells. The "submission" disclaimer only has historical internet archives going as far back as 2022, and the text of this disclaimer cannot be found in the PDF you linked to in the file description (which doesn't even include the picture). One would have to assume (again) that such a disclaimer existed all the way back to 1997, and that the sender had been aware of those terms if the had existed, considering the publication only states: Any such items received by the editor will be for use in STORMDATA only. Any other use will be with the permission of the owner of said items. Materials submitted will be returned if requested in the original submission., which is not good enough as a license release (both because it never states that all submitted images become part of the public domain and because Beckwith could have specifically withheld the "Dead Man Walking" photo from submission, especially considering its rarity). If it had not been published in an NWS publication and its copyright status is derived entirely from the assumption that photos in that sequence are PD, one cannot meaningfully assert that it is, in fact, public domain. It seems the earliest known trace of this photo is within a Time magazine article, which, is definitely not the NWS nor does it mention that the images were provided by the NWS with permission from Beckwith.
As Commons has a precautionary principle, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this image was, in fact, explicitly released by Scott Beckwith to the public domain or with a Commons-compatible copyright license. Without such proof, this and other files uploaded under this assumption must be deleted. Chlod (say hi!) 11:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense when referring to the Dead Man Walking photograph, and I now support the with-holding of that SPECIFIC image until a viable reason for undeletion is found.
The other images, however, should not be deleted, as they are or have been:
A. Made or produced by Tim Marshall, who in fact does damage surveys for the NWS. These surveys are public domain, and have been since they begun. While I cannot find a copyright/disclaimer for that time period on these, Marshall worked in part with the NWS.
B. Other images I uploaded have been used more recently, such as File:Jarrell tornado rope Curtis.jpg, File:Jarrell tornado as it hit F5.jpg, File:Jarrell tornado ground scouring.jpg among others, which have been released AFTER the copyrights were established (assuming they weren't established earlier, which would then constitute the "Dead Man Walking" photo). MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't dig into the other photos, but it's worth noting two other things:
  1. Government publications may include works copyrighted by a contractor or grantee, which may not be under public domain. I have no knowledge of whether Tim Marshall actually worked for the NWS, but assuming that the damage surveys were contracted, these images would have to be (again) published by the NWS to count as PD.
  2. I meant that any other image uploaded which had not been published by the NWS but were marked as so, purely hinging on assumption (like the Dead Man Walking image) should be deleted.
Chlod (say hi!) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can confirm, with reliable sources, that every other image was taken from an NWS publication. Also, I did see the edit summary, thank you for assuming good faith here. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is one other image that was found within the STORMDATA publication, I am actively working on it and will nominate it for deletion if needed. Again, the "Dead Man Walking" image was in good faith, and as I have stated, I was unaware of pre-2000 copyright laws regarding NWS and STORMDATA. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See File:Dead_man_walking_Jarrell.jpg which WAS in the STORMDATA publication. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the publication, it should be fine. Those can be assumed to be PD. Chlod (say hi!) 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may take that back. What about this, which was put into effect in 1988? It mentions it on the recent disclaimer page. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The law states that:
"Sections 401(d) and 402(d) shall not apply to a work published in copies or phonorecords consisting predominantly of one or more works of the United States Government unless the notice of copyright appearing on the published copies or phonorecords to which a defendant in the copyright infringement suit had access includes a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title."
Section 401(d) states that:
"If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement." MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not relevant to the issue at hand. Chlod (say hi!) 11:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it specifically mentioned in the disclaimer? I'm genuinely asking, I’m not mad or anything :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The law is 17 U.S.C. § 403, if you were wondering. It specifically implies that Beckwith was informed of the image being put in the public domain, and this law has been in effect since 1988. The tornado happened in 1997. Other images of his or from that time period SHOULD be PD under this statute. Unless I’m reading something wrong, this is what I see. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see how 17 U.S.C. § 403, as cited here, is relevant. This does not imply Beckwith was informed of anything. It just says someone can't absolve themselves of infringement if they used a clearly-marked copyrighted work that was published alongside a US government publication. Again, the Dead Man Walking image was not part of the publication released by the NWS. It does not apply here. Chlod (say hi!) 12:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. After looking back over the law, I did realize that I had read wrong in terms of copyrights involving the photo. I am currently in support of deletion, and I will say that I was unaware of the copyright statutes pre-2000 involving the NWS and NOAA. I'm also glad we could have a civil argument about this without it spiraling out of control. You made some good points, and I completely agree with them. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]